A worker coop is like statist democracy the same way a heirachical firm is like an autocratic state.
Define your terms. Keep in mind left libertarians don’t use capitalism as a synonym for a free market the way many at the LvMI do.
This simply isn’t true.
While it’s true Carson uses “capitalism” in the corporatist sense, mutualists do not quite want to let the AnCap idea of free markets prevail.
I think of as they want to see free markets prevail but with different property rights.
“While it’s true Carson uses “capitalism” in the corporatist sense, mutualists do not quite want to let the AnCap idea of free markets prevail.”
There’s actually some interesting substance to this notion, and it may be a good way to parse out the anarchist left-libertarians from the libertarians that like having “left” in front of their label.
Carson and those like him simply believe that a free market would lead to labor receiving the full value of its product. The question, then, is what if their idea of free markets don’t actually do anything that they think the intended results should be? Would they support the ends simply because of seemingly justified means, or would they adapt their philosophy Voltarine de Cleyre or Brainpolice style? I think a positive answer to the former shows the libertarians that like the word left, and a positive answer to the latter shows the market anarchists.
I use market anarchism as an umbrella term for schools of anarchist thought that want a market for law, Tucker, Rothbard, Konkin and Carson are all, in my mind, market anarchists. I think the wikipedia page for market anarchism backs me up on that.
I think this is where using a definition of socialism as an ends comes in handy. If we define socialism as putting each man in possession of his full product, and market anarchism as a libertarian legal order rooted within a polycentric legal system; then people who move towards or switch to social anarchism because they believe that market anarchy will not achieve socialism are clearly socialists before they are market anarchists.
I maintain a property-based ethic as foundational to a free-society. Rights are property rights, for instance.
Left-libs believe property is evil, and have crazy ideas how it can be transferred and exchanged, which amounts to theft and aggression. I can’t accept a view of property that violates the NAP.
Mutualists in the FSP.
I maintain a property-based ethic as foundational to a free-society. Rights are property rights, for instance.
Left-libs believe property is evil, and have crazy ideas how it can be transferred and exchanged, which amounts to theft and aggression. I can’t accept a view of property that violates the NAP.
Yes. That’s why left-libertarianism is completely removed from real libertarianism.
She isn’t a free stater, she is a NH native.
Voltairine
Oh man, that’s the most amazing girl’s name ever. The sounds is so… just… amazing…
Propertarianism and left-libertarianism are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps not, but it seems the defining difference is their views of property and beyond that certain metaphysical beliefs (which led to the differeing views of property in the first place).
Mutualists openly call to “abolish private property.” That’s enough for me.
“Mutualists openly call to “abolish private property.” That’s enough for me.”
Carson is probably the only Mutualist I can think of that fits in the left-lib category. Most people that identify as left-libertarians are proprietarians as well…
Roderick Long is a Lockean left-libertarian, I understand most of the people at The Center For A Stateless Society are as well.
“Mutualists openly call to “abolish private property.” That’s enough for me.”
Carson is probably the only Mutualist I can think of that fits in the left-lib category. Most people that identify as left-libertarians are proprietarians as well…
Name me some besides Roderick Long. And how is Carson a propertarian?
Lolwut? If you would just read Rothbard’s critique of the (mutualist) Tucker-Spooner doctrine you might be able to better understand the differences between the two positions. You hear something you don’t like, and rather than find out exactly what they mean or what their arguement is, you instead write them off as crypto-communists.
“Name me some besides Roderick Long. And how is Carson a propertarian?”
As far as I can tell, Carson is pretty ambivalent on property theory. He’ll go on at lengths about posession versus property and then at the end tack on that whatever people chose to operate by is A-OK with him.
In Studies In Mutualist Politcal Economy Carson states that
So Carson is fundamentally consequentialist when it comes to property rights,
Mutualists openly call to “abolish private property.” That’s enough for me.
If you have actually read any literature (you clearly have not), you would know that it is impossible for private property to be abolished. So I don’t know why you’re worried.